FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 14217/10 Wiktoria STRZELECKA against Poland lodged on 1 March 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Wiktoria Strzelecka , is a Polish national, who was born in 1924 and lives in Starachowice .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

1. The background

On 24 August 2000 the applicant signed a lease contract with the Starachowice Communal Housing Community, “TBS” (“ Towarzystwo Budownictwa Spolecznego ” ) concerning a three-room flat located in Starachowice . The flat had an area of forty-eight square metres and the applicant was the only tenant. The applicant was to pay rent in the amount of 268 Polish zlotys (PLN).

The building in which the applicant ’ s flat was located was managed by the TBS, a legal entity designed to provide low-rent housing to households of modest means and financed by the State-owned Housing Fund ( Krajowy Fundusz Mieszkaniowy ). It appears that from 2007 onwards the applicant ’ s flat was managed by the Starachowice Municipality and was considered social housing.

The applicant ’ s rent, which included central heating, cold water and other charges, was increased on several occasions, and in 2009 amounted to PLN 600.

The applicant has been paying the rent irregularly, apparently contesting the amount due for central heating, as the heating was not working properly because of the poor state of the windows. After several years she had accumulated a substantial debt. In 2006 the TBS obtained a court judgment against the applicant, and her granddaughter who has been living with her, ordering them to pay the maintenance charges. It appears that the court bailiff has seized part of the applicant ’ s pension in execution of this order.

On 7 July 2009 and 10 June 2010 the Starachowice Municipality agreed to cancel the applicant ’ s debt in the amount of, respectively, PLN 9,600 and PLN 3,900, provided that the applicant continued to pay monthly rent. It is not clear whether the debt was actually cancelled. On 4 October 2010 and 6 April 2011 the applicant was granted housing benefit in the amount of PLN 280 and 300 monthly, paid directly to the management of the social accommodation.

2. The state of the flat

Since 2001 the applicant has been complaining to the TBS, and later to the municipality, that the state of the flat was unsatisfactory. She submitted that the windows were very old and badly fitted, and she could not open or close them. All the rooms were damp and had mould on the walls.

As early as March 2001 the TBS had acknowledged that the windows needed to be changed; however, it has been postponing the works due to the applicant ’ s non-payment of her debt.

In 2007 the applicant lodged a civil action against the TBS in which she sought payment and to be allocated another flat.

As part of the proceedings an expert opinion was ordered. The opinion submitted to the court on 21 May 2007 stated, in so far as relevant:

“2. The windows are in very poor general condition. The glass is broken in two windows and cracked in others ... the wooden frames are dirty and have paint missing, I think they must last have been painted about thirty years ago. About half the putty is missing, and the glass is actually sticking out of the frame, which causes a real danger of the glass falling out on to people on the pavement ...

3. In general all the walls are covered with mould, dirt and residue from the gas cooker. The same applies to the furniture. There is a discernible smell of mustiness in the flat.

4. The air vents (size 15 x 15 cm) in the kitchen and bathroom are not working properly, no draught was perceived; the total surface of the openings was covered with dust and soot, which is probably what blocked them ... ”

In his conclusions the expert considered that the damp and mould had been caused by the total lack of ventilation in the applicant ’ s flat. The current state of the flat did not comply with the minimum requirements for living accommodations. The state of the windows places passers-by at risk, and they need urgent replacement. In general the expert considered that the applicant should be held responsible for the state of the flat due to her total lack of care, cleaning and maintenance.

On 25 June 2007 the Starachowice District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s action. The court considered that the state of the flat had deteriorated due to the applicant ’ s negligence in ventilating and cleaning it. The court also agreed with the TBS that replacement of the windows may be made conditional upon the applicant paying the debts she owned to the community.

The applicant lodged an appeal but on 7 November 2007 the Kielce Regional Court dismissed it.

In 2008, when the Starachowice Municipality started managing the building, an emergency chimney sweep was organised. At the same time the Mayor confirmed to the applicant that “the Municipality ’ s obligations as regards refurbishment of the flat will be fulfilled after you pay your financial debts for the [maintenance of the] flat.”

The windows remain unchanged and no works have been carried out.

3. The eviction order

It appears that the applicant occupied from the beginning her social accommodation together with her granddaughter, M, and her child. In 2003 a second child was born. Since then the applicant has been occupying the small bedroom and her granddaughter the two other rooms, with her children.

The relationship between the applicant and her granddaughter deteriorated. The applicant claims to have been insulted and beaten up by her granddaughter on many occasions. On 22 January 2002 the granddaughter was convicted by the Starachowice District Court of verbal and physical abuse of the applicant. She was sentenced to eight months ’ imprisonment, suspended for three years.

The applicant also submitted medical certificates from 19 July 2005 and 12 August 2010, stating that she had sustained mild injuries: bruises and haematomas, allegedly caused by her granddaughter.

On 23 December 2008 the applicant lodged a civil action with the Starachowice District Court for eviction of her granddaughter and her children.

On 21 May 2009 the Starachowice District Court allowed the applicant ’ s action and ordered the eviction of M., with her two children (file no. I C 1/09). At the same time it ordered that the defendants be allocated social accommodation by the municipality. The execution of the judgment was to be stayed until they had been allocated social housing.

On 18 June 2009 the judgment became final and binding.

The applicant asked the municipality on many occasions to enforce the judgment by granting social housing to M . and her children.

The Starachowice Mayor replied to the applicant on 5 May and 16 December 2010 and on 13 April 2011 that her request would be dealt with speedily.

However, to date the judgment of 21 May 2009 has not been enforced, and the applicant continues to share the flat with M and her children.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, without citing any Articles of the Convention, that her situation is a difficult one, in that the judgment ordering the eviction of her granddaughter has not been enforced. In addition, she complains that the living conditions in her flat are unsatisfactory, arguing that the necessary works should have been done by the TBS or by the municipality and should not have been made conditional on her discharging her debt owed to the community. She submits that being 88 years old and in poor health she has to endure extreme hardship and that the authorities are doing nothing to help her to live in dignity and humane conditions.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the non-execution of the eviction judgment awarded in the applicant ’ s favour compatible with the applicant ’ s rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has there been a failure by the State to comply with its positive obligations to protect the applicant ’ s right to respect for her home and private and family life, and her physical integrity, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention? Reference is made to the bad state of the applicant ’ s accommodation in which she has been living since 2000 and which can only be refurbished after the applicant has paid her debts for maintenance of her accommodation. Should the applicant ’ s flat be considered as a social accommodation?